Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Justin misrepresents Numbers 21 and Plato

#43201  Postby RealityRules » Mar 02, 2021 5:42 pm

RealityRules wrote:Justin Martyr's First Apology chapter 60
And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timoeus of Plato, where he says, "He placed him crosswise in the universe," he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross,1 and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, "If ye look to this figure, and believe, ye shall be saved thereby".*

And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died,2 and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death.

Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise, he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe.

* Justin is invoking and elaborating on an account about Moses from Numbers 21.

Justin Martyr misrepresents / rewrites Numbers 21.

  1. Moses didn't take brass and ''make it into the figure of a cross', he took brass and made a serpent and put it on a signal-staff, a pole (see Numbers 21:8 below).
  2. Numbers doesn't record that 'the serpents died', it says, "whenever a serpent bit a man, and he looked on the brazen [ie. the brass] serpent, he lived." (see Numbers 21:9 below)
Justin Martyr’s criticism of Plato, saying Plato was "not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross," is also wrong.

Numbers 21:8-9:
8 And Moses prayed to the Lord for the people; and the Lord said to Moses, 'Make thee a serpent, and put it on a signal-staff ; and it shall come to pass that whenever a serpent shall bite a man, every one so bitten that looks upon it shall live.'

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a signal-staff : and it came to pass that whenever a serpent bit a man, and he looked on the brazen serpent, he lived.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#43202  Postby proudfootz » Mar 04, 2021 4:46 am

Some discussion regarding the authenticity of the 'John the Baptist' mention in Josephus.

https://vridar.org/2021/03/03/john-the- ... -josephus/
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10981

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43203  Postby RealityRules » Mar 09, 2021 12:50 am

Recently, even Bart Ehrman has come around to the view of a growing number of scholars that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a preexistent divine being. [1] And with good reason: the evidence is overwhelming. We see this in the earliest Christian creeds and doctrines that we have any evidence of (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 8:6, 10:1-5). https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... uter-space
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43204  Postby proudfootz » Mar 09, 2021 2:19 pm

RealityRules wrote:
Recently, even Bart Ehrman has come around to the view of a growing number of scholars that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a preexistent divine being. [1] And with good reason: the evidence is overwhelming. We see this in the earliest Christian creeds and doctrines that we have any evidence of (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 8:6, 10:1-5). https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... uter-space


Carrier's reasoning is solid. Proving a negative is fraught with difficulties, and as he mentions in the commentary his conclusion is "Jesus was more likely mythical than historical" based on the evidence at hand - definitely not the sort of thing a 'fanatic' would say.

To quote Carrier:

...it is only that non-existent version of Jesus that actually launched the religion (1 Corinthians 15; Galatians 1; Romans 16:25-26). Had there been no imaginary Jesus, there would have been no Christianity. Thus, the historicity hypothesis doesn’t really do all that much work to explain the origins of Christianity: we all agree it originated from the teachings of a non-existent Jesus, so why do we need to cling so desperately to a real Jesus, who didn’t even invent the religion?


The above comports with the conclusion I posted years ago in this thread: even if the Divine Jesus was somehow inspired by an actual person who traveled the dusty roads of Palestine, the Historical Jesus is just about the least important person to know about regarding the development of the christian cults.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10981

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43205  Postby proudfootz » Mar 09, 2021 2:31 pm

In the post linked below some documentation of activity by some HJ scholars to obscure the work of earlier scholarship that exhibited a healthy skepticism with regard to the authenticity of mentions of John the Baptist in surviving texts of Josephus.

https://vridar.org/2021/03/09/early-tho ... uS6ZwJKk2U
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10981

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43206  Postby Stein » Mar 10, 2021 1:07 am

proudfootz wrote:
RealityRules wrote:
Recently, even Bart Ehrman has come around to the view of a growing number of scholars that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a preexistent divine being. [1] And with good reason: the evidence is overwhelming. We see this in the earliest Christian creeds and doctrines that we have any evidence of (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 8:6, 10:1-5). https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... uter-space


Carrier's reasoning is solid. Proving a negative is fraught with difficulties, and as he mentions in the commentary his conclusion is "Jesus was more likely mythical than historical" based on the evidence at hand - definitely not the sort of thing a 'fanatic' would say.

To quote Carrier:

...it is only that non-existent version of Jesus that actually launched the religion (1 Corinthians 15; Galatians 1; Romans 16:25-26). Had there been no imaginary Jesus, there would have been no Christianity. Thus, the historicity hypothesis doesn’t really do all that much work to explain the origins of Christianity: we all agree it originated from the teachings of a non-existent Jesus, so why do we need to cling so desperately to a real Jesus, who didn’t even invent the religion?


The above comports with the conclusion I posted years ago in this thread: even if the Divine Jesus was somehow inspired by an actual person who traveled the dusty roads of Palestine, the Historical Jesus is just about the least important person to know about regarding the development of the christian cults.


PLENTY are not one bit interested in how Christianity started, duh. Far more interesting is Jesus's social criticism. That social criticism is more likely historical than not -- contrary to the unhistorical abracadabra flim-flam that peaks in John and has shit to do with the social criticism. So you can swamp us with all the Kool-Aid gaslight bullshit you like. Fake scholars like Carrier and your drunken incantations about what started the creed are just about as interesting here as a bucket of spit. The historical research of atheists like Ehrman, who are serious professional secular academics, count far more than your doting salaaming of Kool-Aid peddlers. The history of Jesus the human that you dismiss is more interesting to humanity's future and a future with less superstition in it because the real historical Jesus has to do with social justice, not yawn-inducing magic. Your obsession with how Christianity got started is a distracting shiny object having nothing to do with the frigging title of this thread, HISTORICAL JESUS.

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2457

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43207  Postby Leucius Charinus » Mar 11, 2021 4:49 am

Stein wrote:PLENTY are not one bit interested in how Christianity started, duh. Far more interesting is Jesus's social criticism. That social criticism is more likely historical than not --


The social criticism of Jesus as presented in the NT was historically "lifted" from pre-existing philosophical literature (e.g that of the Stoic philosopher and statesman Seneca). The one Nero persecuted.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 843

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#43208  Postby RealityRules » Mar 12, 2021 10:13 am

Stein wrote:PLENTY are not one bit interested in how Christianity started, duh .. [but] 'Fake scholars' like Carrier and your drunken incantations about what started the creed are just about as interesting here as a bucket of spit. The historical research of atheists like Ehrman, who are serious professional secular academics, count far more than your doting salaaming of Kool-Aid peddlers.

    Contradictions abound (and perhaps cognitive dissonance would if it could)

Stein wrote:The history of Jesus the human that you dismiss is more interesting to humanity's future

    Well, yeah, ya gotta know the past to help deal with the future - and the present - the real past
buutttt
Stein wrote:a future with less superstition in it because 'the real historical Jesus' has to do with social justice, not yawn-inducing magic.

    Well ... how is "Jesus's social criticism" 2,000 yrs ago gonna influence the future without superstition ??

Stein wrote:Your obsession with how Christianity got started is a distracting shiny object having nothing to do with the frigging title of this thread, HISTORICAL JESUS.

Here's the frigging Opening Post of this thread, Stein -
Kirbytime wrote:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... uzzle.html

Here's Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle. It was definitely a fascinating read, especially the level of depth they get into, but I'm sure that the actual book is even more fascinating. Has anyone here read it?

    Have you read that 'fascinating read', Stein ?
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43209  Postby proudfootz » Mar 12, 2021 11:35 am

Stein wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
RealityRules wrote:
Recently, even Bart Ehrman has come around to the view of a growing number of scholars that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a preexistent divine being. [1] And with good reason: the evidence is overwhelming. We see this in the earliest Christian creeds and doctrines that we have any evidence of (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 8:6, 10:1-5). https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... uter-space


Carrier's reasoning is solid. Proving a negative is fraught with difficulties, and as he mentions in the commentary his conclusion is "Jesus was more likely mythical than historical" based on the evidence at hand - definitely not the sort of thing a 'fanatic' would say.

To quote Carrier:

...it is only that non-existent version of Jesus that actually launched the religion (1 Corinthians 15; Galatians 1; Romans 16:25-26). Had there been no imaginary Jesus, there would have been no Christianity. Thus, the historicity hypothesis doesn’t really do all that much work to explain the origins of Christianity: we all agree it originated from the teachings of a non-existent Jesus, so why do we need to cling so desperately to a real Jesus, who didn’t even invent the religion?


The above comports with the conclusion I posted years ago in this thread: even if the Divine Jesus was somehow inspired by an actual person who traveled the dusty roads of Palestine, the Historical Jesus is just about the least important person to know about regarding the development of the christian cults.


PLENTY are not one bit interested in how Christianity started, duh. Far more interesting is Jesus's social criticism.


Stein


I do agree that many are not interested in christianity, its origin, and its content (such as it is). There's no particular reason why anyone who's not persuaded that gods exist should consider it important in any way, shape, or form.

:thumbup:

I'd venture to submit that HJers and MJers (to adopt the Manichaean-type polarization of the 'debate') also agree that whatever message is attributed to this Jesus, it is purely human in origin. We can build on that!

If social criticism is the point of interest, it really doesn't matter who made that criticism - it has nothing to do with the validity of the criticism. It stands or falls on its own merits. But again, being interested in social criticism of a society that no longer exists is only of interest to a few. The biography of the person it might be attributed to is an even more obscure pursuit, and obviously irrelevant to the future of humanity.

Trying to dignify social criticism of today's society by attaching the name of some dude who lived 2000 years ago is wholly understandable. But who cares? Why not simply state your case and make arguments supporting your criticism?

Forget about trying to make it seem more authoritative by telling people 'Jesus agrees with me, so suck on it!'

:cheers:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10981

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43210  Postby proudfootz » Mar 12, 2021 11:40 am

RealityRules wrote:
Stein wrote:PLENTY are not one bit interested in how Christianity started, duh .. [but] 'Fake scholars' like Carrier and your drunken incantations about what started the creed are just about as interesting here as a bucket of spit. The historical research of atheists like Ehrman, who are serious professional secular academics, count far more than your doting salaaming of Kool-Aid peddlers.

    Contradictions abound (and perhaps cognitive dissonance would if it could)

Stein wrote:The history of Jesus the human that you dismiss is more interesting to humanity's future

    Well, yeah, ya gotta know the past to help deal with the future - and the present - the real past
buutttt
Stein wrote:a future with less superstition in it because 'the real historical Jesus' has to do with social justice, not yawn-inducing magic.

    Well ... how is "Jesus's social criticism" 2,000 yrs ago gonna influence the future without superstition ??


That really is the only reason to try and associate an idea to the name Jesus. Jesus is magic!

Image

Stein wrote:Your obsession with how Christianity got started is a distracting shiny object having nothing to do with the frigging title of this thread, HISTORICAL JESUS.

Here's the frigging Opening Post of this thread, Stein -
Kirbytime wrote:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... uzzle.html

Here's Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle. It was definitely a fascinating read, especially the level of depth they get into, but I'm sure that the actual book is even more fascinating. Has anyone here read it?

    Have you read that 'fascinating read', Stein ?


:cheers:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10981

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43211  Postby Stein » Mar 22, 2021 2:42 am

RealityRules wrote:
Stein wrote:
AND OF COURSE RR KNOWS

D A M N

W E L L

THAT MOST OF THE HISTORICISTS ON THIS FORUM ARE

N O T

C H R I S T I A N S.

no, I don't know that.

What I do know is you do not address the topic of the thread in any rational manner.

As for this CRAP

Stein wrote:
Anyone who discounts A CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT OF A FAMILY MEMBER IN A NON-HAGIOGRAPHIC SOURCE has swallowed the Kool-Aid and is the same as one of those terrorists who discount A BIDEN VICTORY DULY ACCEPTED BY REPUBLICAN JUDGES.


I'd emphasise it like this

    Anyone Who Discounts “A Contemporary Account of a Family Member In A Non-Hagiographic Source” HAS SWALLOWED THE KOOL-AID and IS THE SAME AS ONE OF THOSE TERRORISTS Who Discount A Biden Victory Duly Accepted By Republican Judges.

Your Weird Attempt to Duly Republicanize the issues is Duly noted, too.

Regarding 'Non-Hagiographic Source' - there's no such thing in Christian history



THERE FUCKING IS. BOOK XX OF ANTIQS. IS A NON-HAGIOGRAPHIC EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF A FAMILY MEMBER OF THE JESUS FAMILY BEING FUCKING SENTENCED FOR STONING.

DUH,

STEIN
Stein
 
Posts: 2457

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43212  Postby Hermit » Mar 22, 2021 3:39 am

Image
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4386
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43213  Postby proudfootz » Mar 22, 2021 2:49 pm

RealityRules wrote:

What I do know is you do not address the topic of the thread in any rational manner.



How dare you, sir?

Don't you recognize a rational response when you see it?
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10981

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43214  Postby RealityRules » Mar 24, 2021 11:41 am

Stein wrote:
THERE FUCKING IS. BOOK XX OF ANTIQS. IS A NON-HAGIOGRAPHIC EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF A FAMILY MEMBER OF THE JESUS FAMILY BEING FUCKING SENTENCED FOR STONING.

DUH,

STEIN

IT'S NOT AN ''EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT''

And, IT IS HAGIOGRAPHY

HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY

Ant XX.200
Festus was now dead and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ whose name was James and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

It's ambiguous: eg. It could be read as 'the brother of Jesus was called Christ'

'Jesus who was called Christ' is present three times in Matthew:

Matthew 1:16: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ"

    interestingly, Jacob is a cognate of James

    And Genesis 25:26 refers to Jacob's birth when he held on to the heel of his older twin brother Esau ...

      Esau is similar to Iesous, the Greek for Jesus (& Joshua)
Matthew 27:17, 22 (both in statements-questions by Pilate)


'Jesus who was called Christ' was probably copied from one of these verses in Matthew into Antiquities XX.200

.
Last edited by RealityRules on Mar 24, 2021 11:58 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43215  Postby RealityRules » Mar 24, 2021 11:50 am

proudfootz wrote:
RealityRules wrote: What I do know is you do not address the topic of the thread in any rational manner.
How dare you, sir?
Don't you recognize a rational response when you see it?

HUH? YOU'LL HAVE TO SPEAK UP - I’VE BEEN RE-RE-REPROGRAMMED IN CAPS LOCK OWNLY
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#43216  Postby Stein » Mar 28, 2021 10:13 am

You've misspelled ONLY.

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2457

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43217  Postby RealityRules » Mar 29, 2021 1:34 am

It was a word-play on each of us trying to 'own' the other ...

Go well
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43218  Postby RealityRules » Apr 08, 2021 5:06 am

Some interesting books -

User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43219  Postby proudfootz » Apr 09, 2021 2:44 am

RealityRules wrote:
Stein wrote:
THERE FUCKING IS. BOOK XX OF ANTIQS. IS A NON-HAGIOGRAPHIC EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT OF A FAMILY MEMBER OF THE JESUS FAMILY BEING FUCKING SENTENCED FOR STONING.

DUH,

STEIN

IT'S NOT AN ''EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT''

And, IT IS HAGIOGRAPHY

HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY HAGIOGRAPHY

Ant XX.200
Festus was now dead and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ whose name was James and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

It's ambiguous: eg. It could be read as 'the brother of Jesus was called Christ'

'Jesus who was called Christ' is present three times in Matthew:

Matthew 1:16: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ"

    interestingly, Jacob is a cognate of James

    And Genesis 25:26 refers to Jacob's birth when he held on to the heel of his older twin brother Esau ...

      Esau is similar to Iesous, the Greek for Jesus (& Joshua)
Matthew 27:17, 22 (both in statements-questions by Pilate)


'Jesus who was called Christ' was probably copied from one of these verses in Matthew into Antiquities XX.200

.


Knowing, as we do, that the formulation 'the one called Christ' is found in hagiographic literature certainly shows that its presence in the received texts of Josephus is not fatal to the hypothesis that it found its way (by accident or design) there at the hand of a christian editor.

As noted in the literature discussing this issue:

Moreover, if he is merely looking for some quick way to identify this Jesus for his readers (one of many by that name in his chronicle), he has a much easier, and less charged, way to do so. He simply has to say, “the one who was crucified by Pilate.” This is a point which supposedly did appear in the “original” passage of Antiquities 18 postulated by scholars, one that would have been easily remembered by the reader. If in fact Josephus had written the “authentic” Testimonium, with no reference to the Christ, the point about Pilate would have been the automatic choice. (This ignores, of course, the consideration that no such crucifixion by Pilate actually took place.)

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/ ... hus%20have
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10981

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43220  Postby RealityRules » Apr 12, 2021 9:35 am

proudfootz wrote:
As noted in the literature discussing this issue:

Moreover, if he is merely looking for some quick way to identify this Jesus for his readers ... He simply has to say, “the one who was crucified by Pilate” ... which supposedly did appear in the “original” passage of Antiquities 18 ... (This ignores, of course, the consideration that no such crucifixion by Pilate actually took place.)

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/ ... hus%20have

I guess we'll never know. If “the one who was crucified by Pilate” was originally in Antiquities 18, it makes one wonder under what circumstances someone would have decided to remove it. Perhaps reference to Christ would have been deemed more pertinent or more grand that reference to Pilate.

There is of course some difference between Ant 18.3.3's "He was the Christ," and Ant. XX.200's "Jesus who was called Christ".

As noted previously, the latter, "Jesus who was called Christ," also occurs three times in Matthew: twice in statements-questions attributed to Pilate - Matthew 27:17, 22.

If such playing with non-Christian texts was happening, one has to wonder why.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2890

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests